STATE OF UTAH 

### DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH scan M. MATHESON. GOVERi'. \. MICHAEL J STAPLEY M P A ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

# rEB J**;>ij~:** "



### 533-6108 Frank L. McFarland Department of the Air Force Hill Air Force Base Headquarters 2849 Air Group Hill Air Force Base, Utah 84056 

### RE: Approval Order for Hydrazine Exhaust Incinerator

- Davis Coun,ty CDS AI /i ,/ I '" 1'1/:+ 

# + ?irjr, :;; ..**)~.** 

### :;.'";;**~L'I** ." .- .'. - , ... :'

. :; On 

### December 24, 1984, the Executive Secretary published a notice of intent to approve a hydrazine exhaust incinerator. The 30 day public comment period has expired, and no comments were received. This air quality approval order authorizes the incinerator as proposed in your notice of intent dated November 21, 1984, with the following operating conditions: 1. 

### All emission control equipment shall be properly installed, .-.,**maintained~** 

### and**~p_erated** 

### as**~o~op~dr-in** 

### the**~otic~** 

### of**in:~n~ ~ated** **~ov. 2~,**  1984. c.m"I:baJ!.:JOi' -f-.<.A';'.fj. 

## , rf!M1.-+tvJlI/..(y 

## /300 F**/lL;J.L.Ci./JI,!.~** 1!0'(,/'<­ 

### 2. No visible emissions from the.incinerator stack shall exceed 20% opacity as measured by EPA Reference Method 

### 9. 3. 

### If a stack test is performed, the results of the test shall be**~~** 

### submitted to the Executive Secretary.**(~** 

### 4. The Executive Secretary shall be notified when startup occurs as an initial compliance inspection is required. The fee for issuing this approval order is $138.34. The amount (see enclosures for breakdown of costs) is payable to the Utah Department of Health, sent to the Executive Secretary, Utah Air Conservation Committee, and is due within 30 days after receipt of the approval order. Sincerely,

Brent C. Bradford Executive Secretary 

## ti< Utah Air Conservation Committee DK:wml Enclosures cc: EPA Region VIII (N. Huey) Davis County Health Department 

### 4.2.4-980 6709 KENNETH L. ALKEMA, DIF<ECTOR • DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT Al HEALTH

"C:1""'l 'A,eeT "1r-"ln'T'U**.,.~** ..**~,....** ............ ,... .. , ..... -=-....... ,.. •. _, _ _ •• _ .. i

### NOT ICE

The following notices of intent to construct, submitted in accordance with Section 3.1, utah Air Conservation Regulations, have been received for consideration by the Executive Secretary, utah Air Conservation Committee:

1. Hill Air Force Base, hydrazine incinerator, Davis Co.

// 2. Deseret Medical, catheter heparin coating, Sandy

3. Intermountain Products, vermiculite plant, Salt Lake City

4. Salt Lake Airport, parking lot, Salt Lake City

5. Geneva Rock Products, cement batch plant, Snowbird Salt Lake Co.

The engineering evaluations and air quality impacts have been completed, ana no adverse air quality impacts are expected. It is the intent of the Executive Secretary to approve these construction projects.

The construction proposals and estimates of the effect on local air quality
are available for public inspection and comment at the Bureau of Air Quality, utah State Department of Health, Room 426, 150 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. Written comments received by the Bureau, P.O. Box 45500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, on or before January 23, 1985, will be considered in making the final 

### decision on the approval or disapproval of the proposed construction. 4.2.4-981

### 2 

# -

If anyone so requests, within 15 days of publication of notice, a hearing will be held in the area of the proposed construction, installation, modification, relocation, or establishment.

Date of Notice: December 24, 1984

\



### 4.2.4-982**12/5/S~** 

### t>1inor ( l'ew )**~,ajO!** ID;'! BLREP.U 

### OF AIR QUALITY 

### ENGINEERING REVIEr;

- SlJ-',I'-'MY (NJI Dated**1l/2K'~)** 

### ENGINEER/DATE

- Con Robinson 12/4/84 Owner/Operator: Kill Air Force Base Source: Emergency Power Unit Firings on F-16s Applicant/Official: Frank L. 

### M:Farland Applicant/Official Address: Dept. of Air Force, HDQRS 2849 Air Base Group (AFLC) , Hill AFB, 

### ·UT 84056 lelephone Number of Contact: 801-777-2065 (Bill Taylor) Plant/Activity Location and Address:**~Jll** 

### AFB (Weber Co.) Type of Operation: Hydrazine Exhaust Incinerator
I. Background The F-16 is a new single-engine tactical aircraft. Since the F-16 is an electronically controlled configuration aircraft, an emergency power unit is used to provide short-term electric and hydraulic power for aircraft control. The emergency**p~ler** 

### unit (EPU) is fueled with 

### a monopropellant hydrazine mixture, H-70, which contains 70% hydrazine and 30% water. During EAU testing, the hydrazine fuel will be passed through the normally used catalyst, which is actually part of the EPU. The**e~issions** 

### of concern are the Exhausts that 

### will leave the EPU after the hydrazine passes through the catalyst. Under no-load conditions, the EPU operates in a pulsed manner at approximately two pulses/second. Because water in the fuel does not enter into the decomposition reactions, the exhaust gas has a very high ".'ater vapor content and hence a high dew point. The exhaust gas is

. discharged from the F-16 aircraft through a three inch duct opening, flush with the aircraft skin near the wing root and directed vertically dm,mv:arc. 

### II. Proposal Hill Air Force Ease is**proposin~** 

### to install a hydrazine exhaust incinerator to control the emissions from planned EPU test firings. lhe incinerator is single-chambered, forced air, and propane-fired. The combustion char,ber is cylindrical with a three foot inside diameter and is ten feel tall. The specified performance characteristic is that it emits hydrazine at levels which do not exceed 1 ppm. It accomplishes this by creating a combustion chamber with a temperature of 1800 decrees F. and a residence time of 0.6 seconds. 4.2.4-983

# - 2 

### The following**nu~bers** 

### describe the operation: 1­ 

### Two test firings per day. 2. 260 

### days per year. 3. 

### One minute per test firing. J 

# rt 4.

### ~drazine 

### - N2HY. /' 

## i 5. 

### Cne ppm N2Hf 

### emitted to atmosphere. 6. 

### Propane fired, 1.1 X 10 6 BTU/hr. 7. 45 

### minutes per EPU 

### firina. 8. 4630 

### ft tv'S£:"
­ o ./ 

## . Stack height 15 

### ft. 10. 

### Stack Temp. 1800 

### degrees F. 11. 

### Residence time - 0.6 

### seconds. The incinerator will be installed adjacent to Building 2005 

### at**~AF8.** 

### This is in Weber County. 

## A contract has been let to AeroVironment to devise a sampling train.**Sa~ples** 

### will be taken before and after incineration in order to calculate efficiencies. Construction is already underway and startup is planned for March 1985. 

## III. Regulation Applicabilitv This source is SUbject to the follovling regJlations: 1. 

### Section 3.1, 

### UAOR

- NOI 

### requirement. 2. 

### Section 4.1, 

### uAOR

-**2~~** 

### opacity. 3. 

### Section 4.7, 

### UACR

- Unavoidable breakdown. This source is not subject to PSD, NSPS, or NESHAPS. The area is**~attainment** 

### for particulate. Ogden is nonattainment for 

# eo. IV. 

### BACT A'lalysis The incinerator constitutes BACT for this source. A temperature of 

### 1800 degrees F. 

### and a residence time of 0.6 

### seconds will oxidize any 

# voe or riyd!"2.zine.

I' I. 

### Hooe:ino

-**r--~cne.** 

### Si1all 

### source. VI. Err.ission Surn;;,ary**;-~2r1j** 

### - .48 

### Ib/yr Nux

- 4125 

### ton/yr 'IE. 

### Recommendations P.ecor,::iend approval with the following conditions:

_. All emission control equipment shall be properly installed, r.:2intairled, and operated as propcsec in the notice of intent dated l'lbv. 21, 1984. 4.2.4-984

### 3 

### 2. No visible emissions from the incinerator stack shall exceed 20% 

### opacity as measured by EPA Reference**~ethod** 

### 9. 3. 

### If a stack test is performed, the results of the test shell be submitted to the Executive Secretary. 4. 

### The Executive Secretary shall be 

### notified when startup occurs 2S 

### an initial compliance inspection is required.
TRiads 6235



### 4.2.4-985

# ~~-**-~~** ..

# ~-_._----- _._--._-_ .. 

# _-­

.. 

# --.- - --. -.--. __ .... -- -----Tvf.-, _@ S;J6

__

# t;J~_ty" 

# -­

__ . . . __ ._. ._ .. _ ... _. __ C{£

__**~_~.** 

## ._

# ----6--r~-----~ _%**:f~** 

# -­
._

.__ .__ _ 

# Lcb

_

------------ .- --------- -- -.---- --.------.-----**~_r2** ==- 

# c?--7-2..Ic.i:-­



# __ . . . __ @

__ -I()O

__

# '?~_~-V------



# - .---- - - ------.--------- ---- -

# ---(f)---j,j--£.i(}~-&&/~--------**-~:-- .-::~**  ------­

# ~~--~--

__ . __ flOL L LJ. 

## TAtY 

# r __ (.,...13 

# I Flre r 

## #';:.

__ .

# ---~B-!'£."f.--- tEtf/fM 

### --rl1oL.£.s 

# I YI?



# . ;, 

### ,



# ____**/v~** 

# 111----- rO_f.2____**~,** .s_' ') 

# to (5.2.

_ I 

## ;1/tt J _ _ .

## _~-_----.~~-7~~-- 

# l.£?7--,-tJ-**JQ(1VOL.?~** 

## _

# '~l.. . 

## _tt"

_ _.

# .;)7/-'-~Y.!- 

# .__ (;,_'_r-6-7;L

..

# -~L--- 

# //1- _. . 

# --.it ffo 

### t__
_

# J.~3 

# 1.1. ?" ( 

# f:L(Y.JJ...LLr.....:.. -, 

# _ 0 D------

---- 3..c _'-- 

# ./£'..7 J

# y_~-L3J~~-



# -- ... ----------------- .... - .------.-----.-.--------,..---- ·-1



# . I 

## pSc.F-
. 

# =- 

# i' 7 X 

## roc- t3771 Y/f



# .**----~--** 

# - .- .----- - .. 75 -- ­
. _ 'JDo '5111 .5c.r



### 4.2.4-986v



# ___ c}

.

# II t- -_.- 1:**.--~.lJ--~--:3** C

# ~--7:_--V-t-£- - 

# _D

_



# __________ .__**ll!?~t;** 

# fb 

# S1fF--±**L)~** 3> 

## y'J ,

## ??~_O~___ _n _ 

# (j)**srt:--6~-S-:** 

# r c 

# C?L.---. 

# --------'0---2+

..**YJ3~-1i"-fi~-** 

# 0

_



# ___ .**"2~ {)_~~L~jf-**  -f

# LL?0.-.~:L~_-;:>_\ .----;-

_ 

# ----------'w

( 

# r 

# #cJ.2.

_ )t7J I



# ______ . ._ .. . . --fj)

__7<ft). 

# (J>

__ ...**~-O---** 

# . ...__ .. __ . .



# --**~=~,!O,7f~j_~ i/fi3-~-;j-u-~s70~** **IVD.;~~-~~t[~-=~-~==~ ------------------'-~-~f_**  

# -.



# . --**.---------©-(O-4$L-~..2** 1fiJ-.- Q '-­

___________ 0{r_07J.

# ~S- -;- )D 

## _5?b c 

# :>2-_

# O~_7 

# __ . _ 1



# _______ C)_el 07;) I 

# G

# S-**~-Q** __ .. ----­ 

# r**--~_._~-------**



# - ____/I-{q --7 ._ 

# hV

__rl/:Ltf.iLl

# £ 

# /J--- .:._

n

# ,-----------r+J.-Q------~------**------t3J-5fJ~)..L-1 £_----"~_O=-----.-~**  '--'------'-- 

## _._- - 

### '- ,----

... 

### _._-----_ ..

### _------ 

## -_
.. 

### _--­.u __ •• 

# rJDL ._.V\

# f?l~.~ 

# .. u 

## (/7 

## or ()t.! 

# L{_yJ_**\~!.~/3_/_JS-J~~** .. ._



# .... - ----- ,,-.,._ .. . F!..

__. .. -- .. -------.----- .. -----.

# ---TP.~S=3 .---.-- .... _- ­ 0 _ ( '-C1e-'



# ..**lto~ C-=-_;,1."'E-~---**  

# ..**-.-.--.-~---.** 

# '. 7 

## <f

# 3 (;**-~---;r-** 

# -.-p-.-.---­ .p - l /.U 

## '3 

# -.;G '-.

. _. __ .. _.____**r?_.~** 

# __ .. _ _ _. __**(r)-d.-.<~.----.-.** 

# _ I_
.. ... 

# 7y/\

- j'
-­**-~-_._-_._** . . _. __ ._-- _.. .-.----.**-~-----** - --------------. 0 

### ---_ _.- 

# _ ­

.... -.- ···0-·--···.·--------
--

## ~_.-L~<E?~----K-fJ)-_.- 

# --:...--*t=A



# ______.___**.~c.** 

## "'2L6

... . .-!< .S**~_o** 

### J!.**-'i~.-_** 

# .. .. ___. __ .

# n-~~:-=:~~-==-=~--~-~--I!..;-'f-f--,3~-. 

# tj:c;:E#-_( ._ - -_._­

--- - .. '.- 

## -_. ----_.- ._- . - .. 

### _--- ..

# __ .--_._---. - ._ .. ------.­**-"-'---"~**



# ... -- ;t;**~V_----~~----J---j ~--------_**  .. -----. - ... --- .- .-.----.-.

.

# -~ 

# . --**---3·-~~~~~"'~jr;f --~;-rr;l~ly~/~**  

# /7nl**~'(b'"** .. -.- -

.. -----

# ~-.- _ _- --.-- ..

# -o-····--~·AI~- 

# --- --- .. -----­

I 

# G 0

# ~ol:> . ._.'....

. . . __ .. _ . _ ... .. . .. .. .... .. . _... _ >cF

__ .. _. __ __ . - -_. . . ­ j 

## ![) 1/ 

# .IV

--**~.** 

# ._-:-::._._ ..**~~** 

# \)**r~** 

## /,IObS·C-'C=.·

-- -- -- --. . "--

- -**~-** 

# -.---.n-r --.**o-(-~~·_···** 1 

# /{Ob:

.. ..._ .. _ .**~.** 

# W-C

. _ ..... _..... . .. _ ..... 

# __**._(~** .. .j 

# "':::::---0'-' -.- - . .....:----- . ,! 

# r;:.o**lO~ s~**  

# .

# --····l~ 4.2.4-988

### ---------- 

## _. __ .. __ ... 

### _-­

---- .- 

### - ---_._--­ 

## ---_
.. 

### _-- 

## ------------_.- .•.. 

# _-

--- -_._-.--_. ._----­



### --_.-------------------- ----_._--------­

--------------------------------- 

## _._-_
.. 

### _--_._._--._--­
._----_ .•. _-----_. 

## --­

-----------------------------------_.---------_._--_.-_
... 

## _--­
.-._------_.


# __ ._ .. _. 

### --­



### ._---------_ .... _._ .. 

### _-_._---­



### -------------- ._------_ .•. _-----_ •..

.

### _----- ... 

### - ._. 

## __ .. ---------_ •... 

### _-- --_. ­


### -_._--_ ..•.


# __ .

# __ .. 

## _--_._--­

_.- --_. _._ .... 

### _-_.- _. -_.


## __ .. __ . _.

# __ .- .. 

## -_._-----_._. _. --- .. - _. ­

.... 

### _._----------­
-----_ .. -._.

_ .. _

.. 

### 4.2.4-989STATE OF UTAH 

## DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SCOTT M. MA THESON. GOVERNOR MICHAEL J STAPLEY. MP.A

.. ACTING EXECUTivE DIREC-'·**~verrber** 

### 28, 1984 533-6108
Frank L. McFarland Dept. a f the Air Farce Hill Air Farce Base, Utah 84056 RE: Receipt of Notice of Intent Dear Mr. M:Farland: This letter acknowledges receipt 0 f 

### your application for an air quality approval order dated November 21, 1984. We have begun our evaluation and if any additional information is necessary, you can expect to hear from us within 30 days. Sincerely,

David I<Dpta Manager, Engineering Section Bureau of Air QJality

I. 

## K. Cl</ads 

### 6190(c)



# -

KENNETH L ALKEMA. DIRECTOR. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 150 WEST NORTH TEMPLE. PO. BOX 2500 • SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 841 10-2500 • (S01) 533-6121 AN EOUAl OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 

### 4.2.4-990, I r-.V'-...I U 

### CU C. 'ARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 2S49TH AIR EASE GROUP (AFLC) 

## NOV 261984 HILL AIR FORCE BASE. UTAH 84056 UlC1:

.**.:JLQ~~.** JIV, 

## Of 

## :rwironmema i

### ~eatth 

## 21 NOV 

## 1984

SUBJECT, 

### Notice of Intent to ConstIuct

- Hydrazine Exhaust Incinerator I 

### Hill Air 

### Force Base

TO' Utah Air 

### Conservation Ccmnittee Bureau of Air 

### O-lality PO Box 

### 2500 • Salt 

### Lake City UT 

### 84110-2500 1. Attached is 

### a _Notice of Intent to construct for a new H-jdrazine Exhaust incinerator sutmitted in a:npliance with 

### section 3.1 

### of the 

### State Air 

### Conservation Regulations. This is the 

### sane sut:mi.ttal 

### we mailed on 12 

### September which 

### has 

### not .been received by 

### your office. We would 

### appreciate 

### your tiITe1y review of this 

### sutmittal because the 

### original was 

### lost.

, .. 2 • _ 

### IfJ10u have 

### any questions I 

### please feel free to--cal1 

### Bill 

## Th.Ylora(;3j
'

. .-. . .

# :PU!~ 1 

### Atch FRP.ftK l McFARtARD

. 

### Notice of Intent 

### Deputy Ban Civil Engineer Civil EngiDeering niYiskm 

# I/ofoftlto'l" I fJknJ 

# f, 

# 'It" r/ /." 117 e 

# £"7**I~** t!'

# C"~/;'Y 

# 5**~c ~,:..** **1/~f'1** J 

# r,,-; .

7l FL 

# C - Lifeline oj the tle 

## rospaa Deem 4.2.4-991

# ,-O-GI::I 

# VEr'-' NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSTRUCT 

## NOV 

## 261984 HYDRAZlNE EXHAUST INCINERATOR

_**Ul~:** ....**~c.~t...** oJ/V. 

## Of =OVifOnmerrtal 

## '-Ieatth HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH
1. The following information is provided in accordance with the outline in section 3.1.6 of the State Air Conservation Regulations:
a. .Project ""'DescrJ,pti-on-:

- --" 

### .. -::- .... . (1) 

### The proposed incinerator will be installed to burn unreacted**hYdr~z:tne(~2Hll):*****:~tt_ed>,dur~.,~e:.gency** 

### Power Unit**(E~U)** 

### test fi:-ing. The**'~EPU** J...S 

### -nt1J.5.Zed**~~he** 

### .. J:'''';16 

### to**'Prov~de emergency-electr~cal**  

### power**~n** 

### the event



## ..... -,' -". ". . ".**.~.** ...-........ 

### - - . 

### of**generator'~ailur~** 

### Basically, it works on the principle of passing**~he** 

### . . '-'bydrazinef'llel**thiougb~an'** 

### oxidiz:ingcatalyst ,:;g'enera ting gas 

### (ammonia and ;

decomposition products)" and**~urning** 

# a. turbine wheel with the resulting .gas .,' :::"':
..**~-""'~:-':'-'. ~-.**  - ."':. . . . .

. _ ''''''.

_ "'- .e.. ................. .-.. . .. . .. _.-:....**~.-** .. _. . . ".,_**(2)Each~:~~st~~ir~g'~1** 

### last one .minute during 'which time a**maxjmum:~r"-:12 poundS·.d:f.~he70%·hydrazine**  

### solution are burned. This is ::. according 

## to-an Air**F~~;e** 

### studY-nExhaust Gas Composition for the F-16 Emergency Power Unit" (Report SAM-TR-79-2), which is provided as an attachment•.. " Under_a

. .maxjmum

. .loading condition,,.as many as 

### two EPUs'maY"'":be test·**fired~::each** 

### -day**~'?260"days:per** 

### .year. This ac'c'ounts' for a total of 520 test firings during a year, consuming a total of**6,~40~pounds~f** 

### the H-70 hydrazine

..fuel whicllis 30 percent water-;"iO' percent hydii%ine.

.

. -._----. . .,...;.....:.. ::.... .**~.;-":.:.;..::::.-** ..**~~** ..



### (3) 

### During the EPU testing, the hydrazine fuel will be passed through the normally used catalyst which is actually part of the EPU. The finished product will only be the verification that the EPU is operating correctly. The emissions of concern are the exhausts that will leave the EPU after the hydrazine passes through the catalyst. b. Expected Emissions: (1) Prior to Treatment:.The decomposition of hydrazine in the 

### EPU is basically as shown**~n** 

### the.following reaction:

+ + 

### This shows a 50 

### percent dissociation of 

### ammonia (NH ) 

### which corresponds to 3 

### What was seen in tests. Tests have also shown that a maximum of 0.053 

### pounds of unreacted hydrazine may pass throush the catalyst. Thus, of the 8.4 pounds of hydrazine (70% 

### of 12 

### pounds) consumed in each test firing, 

### 8.347 is reacted according to the above**reaction~** 

### This gives:**3NH~2NH** +

## (8.34~)**~2.9~6)** 4.2.4-992

### The antieipated emissions before treatment can then be listed as follows: Pollutant Lbs/' Hin Test Fire Lbs/Year Hydrazine (N H

### )~?~).ci' 0.053 27.56 Ammonia (N

## H2)~ 

## n· b ""!> 

### 2.956 1,537.12 Hydrogen (H 

# 1- ;). fJf" 

### 0.522 271 .44 

### Nitrogen

## (N~) - 

### IV. 

# ofi 4.869 2,531.88 Water 

### & Dissociation Products**-L~~{~** 

### 3.6 1,872.00 12 Lbs Fuel (2) After Treatment::rhe Air Force is requiring the exhaust treatment supplier tOlIleet the specification of no more. than' one part per million of unreacted hydrazine in the treated exhaust. At a**flo~** 

### rate of '333 

### SCFM, one ppm equates to approximately 0.0001 pounds per minute or pounds per test firing (since they are for one minute). Pollutant Lbs/l Hin Test Fire Lbs/Year Hydrazine (N H ) 0.0001 0.052 2 Combustion Progucts of 0.0529 27.5' Hydrazine Combustion Products of 2.956 1 ,537.12 Ammonia Hydrogen (H 

### ) 0.522 271 .44 

### 2

, . 

### Nitrogen (N 

### ) 4.869 2,531.88 2 Water 

### & Dissociation Products 3.6 ',872.00 12 Lbs Fuel



# ......**dS~** The

### -:inc~e;:;t~~"~treatment will

### al~o-'i~volve the production"' of --'emissions' 

# from the burning of propane fuel. "It is ,estimated that 1.1 METU



### will be used per hour of operation and that the incinerator will be fired a maximum 

## of**~5** 

### minutes per test firing. Assuming a heating value of 90,500 BTU per gallon of propane, consumption of propane per test firing can be obtained from the following: (0.75 hrs/test)(l ,100.000 BTU/hr) 

## = 9.12 gallons/test 90,500**~TU/gallon** 

### Using AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," and anticipating 520 test firings per year, the emissions from the propane burr-lng is as follows: Pollutant Lbs/Year Particulates 1.28 Sulfur Oxides 0.07 Nitrogen Oxides 58.S1 Carbon Monoxide 14.70 Volatile Organics Nonmethane 1.19 Methane 1 

### .28 

## z 4.2.4-993

# -:(45";;:: The

-- volume 

## -l:>t

_**a~/** 

### combustion products emitted from the 

# -­**1ncinerator~** 

### will beoapproximate1.y1333 SCFM and they will be emitted at a temperature

_ of 1800 F. "


### c. Characteristics:**:~he ~roposed**  

### air cleaning device is a**sing~e** 

### chambered,**forced-air~** 

### propane-fired incinerator. The combustion chamber is cylindrical with a three-f.oot .inside diameter and is -ten**~eet** 

### tall: The specified**performance~charaCteristic** 

### is that it:-emits hydrazine at levels no greater than one part per million. ,It**accompli~hes** 

### this by creating 

## a combustion-_"chamber with--a:' temperature of 1aOO 

### o r 

### and residence time of" 0.6

­**seconds~~~..:-~'· -~.**  ..


# . . ' ... -..... 

## -- .. 

### --- '. 

### d. Location:**~Tbe_j,,!Jcineratm::** 

### is to be installed adjacent to Building 2005 at llillAi'I' Force "Base shown in Figure 1 

### .0, which is in Weber County. The**incineratqr~,_located** 

### on a concrete pad on the east side of the building, will have its**st~ck** 

### terminate- at'about 15 

### feet above ground level (ground level is**about~~630.MSL_at** 

### this location). The facility is located in a fairly remote 

# area of the base. Building 2004 is immediately adjacent, but like 2005, will only be manned on occasions. The closest building routinely -Qccupied is approximately 500 feet to the northeast. However, at one part per million hydrazine, the stack**efflue~t** 

### will meet the OSHA 

### standard for eight­ hour time weighted exposure; even with no dispersion, no hazards exist.
e. Sampling: The Air Force proposes to sample the incinerator both at Airesearch Los Angeles, where the incinerator will be constructed, and at Hill Air Force Base after delivery. :A' 

### contract has -'been let to AeroVironmentto

..... .,...... ..**~_** •

__ .'. o • .-r:"'"':- .':-..:_'._ •• .:........ •**.,~~;** .,' 

# -, devise**'a-:sampling:tra~.** 

### It 

### has hot yet been determined whether**Aire~~arch** 

### or AeroVi'I'onment-'will- actually conduct the sampling. ,--Samples will be takezi._

-- be fore 

# and**-~-a.fter** 

### "'"incirieratiori'"sc)tha t e fficiencies- 'can be' calculated**~-;"'The**



### exhaust s'ampling**"port"'~s'shown** 

### in- the incinerator" drawings. Also during sampling, a worst-case situation will be simulated where two seconds (at 0.2 Lbs/sec) of hydrazine by-passes the catalyst and goes straight to the incinerator. In actual operation, the EPU will automatically shut down after two seconds if the catalyst is not working. f.**Ope~ating** 

### Schedule: The heaviest usage now anticipated calls for two 

### EPU test firings per day, 260 -days per year. g. 

### Construction Schedule: Facility modifications are already underway to accommodate the test stand and incinerator. It is**cu~rently** 

### proposed to have the**incinerato~** 

### in place'-for ':sampling in March 1985. 

### h. Plans and Specifications: Incinerator**d~awings** 

### and**Ai~** 

### Force Report SAM-TR-79-2 are attached.

3 

### Atch
I. 

### Map 2. Air Force Report SAM-TR-79-2 

### 3.**Incine~ator** 

### Drawings

4.2.4-994 

### 30. • 

## -- .. 

# _.-.­ 

# N

./ka:JEc.r - 

### L«AnoA./ t3UlilJ/AX. Z005

# --

- 

# - -- · 

## .•.



# l

--­ -=-­ b ! -,..

# ---- . /u 

### fr (I I 

### ":I-,f, I. 

### M J£., 

# :·'":/t;**,:'-c.y'~v\'j·** '.

- r-f<A> 

## !1\ V . t .' I, \ f**:~~~.;;;<.~** 

## .... _ .... ;. . f' 1/ // ---- ­ 

## Report SAM- 

## TR- 79-2



# EXHAUST GAS COMPOSITION OF' THEF·l&EMERGENCY POWER UNIT •


## Harry J. 

## Suggs, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, BSe Leonard 

# J. Luskus, Ph.D. Herman 

# J. Kilian, B.S. Joseph W. Mokry, Staff Sergeant, USAF

February 1979 Interim Report for Period 1 October 1977

- 31 March 1978

'" ..--'

. 

## .... ".:" Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

USAF SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC) Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235



### 4.2.4-997

.,... .. ,

. .:; ,,\**~'-":'.**

# -- ; I EXHAUST GAS COHPOSITION OF 

### THE F-16**L~ERG£NCY** 

### rOWER UNIT



### INTRODUCTION The F-16 is a new single-engine tactic.al aircraft scheduled to become Air Force operational in early 1979. Since the F-16 is an electronically controlled configuration (fly-hy-wire) aircraft, an**~mergency** power unit (EPU) is used to provide short-term electric and hydrau.l. i.c power for aircra it cont ro1. The EPU is fueled with a monopropellant hydrazine mixture, H-70, which c.ontains 70% hydrazine (N H ), Z 4 30% water, by weight. The introduction of hydrazine to the aircraft flight line scenario has raised numerous questions on environmental and occupational health support requirements. Early discussions with the F-16 Systems Program 

## \ Office (ASD/YP), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, identified a 

### 1 \ I 

# \ I 

# \ I need to determine the chemical composition of the EPU exhaust gas, to verify theoretical analyses. Specific questions were raised on the quantity of unreacted hydrazine and ammonia in the**EP~** exhaust gases. Answers to these questions were necessary to develop controls and pro**tectiv~** actions to prevent Qxcessive**expo~ure** to either of these toxic constituents. During the week of 23**~o** 27 Jilnu..!ry 1978, an analytical team from the Crew Environments Branch, CSAf School of Aerospace Medicine, collected .1 s,:ri25 of exhaust samples Juring ground-u:sL firings of an installed 

## 1 F-16 EPU. This report descrihes the test pro,:edures and details the EPU**~xhaust** hydrazine and ammonia emissions.


### DESfCN OF THE STUDY Planned test firings or inadvertent ground firings were known to be largely cold-start runs of short duration under no-load conditions. Inadvertent firings typically have resulted in engine shut-down when the EPLJ mode selector switch was in the .:lutot!l<ltic: position. The study therefore \o."as designed to collect the exhaust samples following coldstart: firings under no-load c()nditil>l1s. Theoretical reactions of the catalytic decomposition of hydrazine :lre shown in Table 1. Theoretical gas composition for H-70 is shown in Figure 1 as a function of X, the fraction of ammonia dissociated in reaction 2. The value of X for the 

### F-16 £PU was unknown at the start 

### or the investigation, but \·J<1S determined to hl' approximately 0.5 (50% _1I11lr.cmia dissociat ion).

. 

# i 

# I
4.2.4-998

"r.·
.:,. "

### TABLE 1. REACTIONS OF THE CATALYTIC DECOMPOSITION OF HYDRAZINE

.'
.

... ':.:_,:,

,";. 3
4
] 

### N 2H 4 NH] N)H,



### - 

# ..

wnere X 

### 4 NH 3 

### + N Z Z NZ 

### + 6 HZ



### • 

### 4 (I-X) NH] 

### + 6X 

### HZ + (2X + 1)

fraction of NH 3 dissociated. 

### N Z (1) ( Z) (3)

.**~'-.** 

## 60 r

## 40 LoU ::E ::=l

. 'f" a :::­

. ".

.- L
... 

### >­ aJ

0 

## 20

. " ,



# o N2



# o 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 l.OG X . FRACTION OF NH 3 DISSOCIATED

Figure 1. Theoretical exhaust products from catalytic decomposition of H-70. 2



## ... ; ,-**~-/** ':.' -.;' ",

. ,' .. . ;**~.** " , . 

### 4.2.4-999

# --- • J Under no-load conditions, the 

### EPU operates in a pulsed manner at approximately two pulses per second. Because water in the fuel does not enter into the decomposition reactions, tlle;·'e1ChaUS:C,.gas:has a very high water vapor content and**hencea·;hA&p.·~Q.e~;,p.qi~t.** The exhaust gas is discharged from the F-l6 aircraft through a 3-in (7.62 cm) duct opening, flush**~ith** the aircraft skin near the wing root and directed**verticall~** downward. Maximum gas temperature was expected to be about 800°F (430 C). These combined factors created somewhat adverse conditions for extractive sampling. However, since in situ measurement techniques were not available within the required time frame, an extractive sampling method was devised and briefly laboratory tested before the study was undertaken. The extractive sampling train, shown schematically in Figure 2, employed an evacuated tank (approximately 

## 74 liters) to draw sample through the train, to collect noncondensible gases in the .sample, and to 

# I i

# I

I ] \ i i t i t

# i



# , 

# i } 

## i



# ,. contain that gas sample for subsequent analysis. The tanks were alternatively replaced with a vacuum pump, in which case the noncondensible gases were not collected. A limiting orifice was used to maintain a known sampling rate of approximately 1 l/min. Two impingers, in series, each containing 100 ml of 2N sulfuric acid were placed in an ice bath and used to trap ammonia, hydrazine, and water. Solenoid valves before and after the impingers were remotely actuated to start and stop sample flow at predetermined times. An electrically heated sample line and nozzle, preheated to lOOoe. was used to deliver the sample to the**impi~gers.** The sample line led to a manifold that allowed independent operation of five identical sampling trains, in parallel. Samples were collected**f~om** each of the five trains concurrently or sequentially as desired.**Exha~st** gas temperature was measured with a type J, iron-constantan**therrnocoupl~** located alongside and flush with the sample nozzle. 

# ---------_.- --------­

"-'-------_'V" J (..10:( s 'AUUEL**~A.MPlING** TRAINS FROM SINGll NOZZlE i' ·,;u(,,) Schernnt ic diagram of exhaust gas sampling t r.ain. J

4.2.4-1000

# -

The sampling time interval for each sampling train for the six EPU tests is shown in Figure 3. Lines, in the figure, indicate the time of on-stream sample collection for each of the five samples in each test. Only four samples were collected in test 1. .S.$;::. and'B indicate tests with r:wad.;fffet;ent;.emergency

..**PQ..w.~~;,~uni.t~.** installed in the aircraft. Set A was run on 24 Jan 1978 with'EPU 

### SiN 76-103, and Set B on 26 Jan 1978 with EPU 

### SiN 76-107. The first test in each set was run after the EPU had stood overnight at ambient temperature (about SoC). Between the two subsequent tests in each set, the catalyst bed was purged with gaseous

... " , nitrogen and cooled to touch. However, neither EPU was instrumented to measure catalyst temperature, making actual bed temperature unknown at the beginning of subsequent restarts.

:. ".'

..**.~.;: ~~**  .. ­ .'**~.. ,:,.,:~** **.~** ..

# ­ LINES INDICATE TIME THAT INDIVIDUAL SAMPLING TRAIN IS ON-LINE



## 2 3 4 

## 5 TIME
- MINUTES

Figure 3. Sampling sequence. Impingers were weighed before and after each test to determine total condensibles collected. Impinger samples were spot**an~lyzed** in the field to verify sample collection, but all samples were returned to t.he laboratory at Brooks AFB for final analysis. The p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde (PDAB) colorimetric method (1) was used for hydrazine. Prelim.iuary t.esting srhJwed that ammonia did not, interfere in the hydrazi.ne· method. Assay for ammonia was aOlle wi.th Nessler's reagent (2).

I '<

. , 

### 4.2.4-1001

. ','
. .:., '-" .. .("' ......

## .. ' RESULTS
Exhaust Gas Temperature The temperature profih:s for two cypical EPU tests are shown in Figure 

### 4, as a function of time. 

### Before the completion 

### of the first run, it was ;lpparent that EPU operation was not as had been expected. 

# l , ; , During run I the t'xhaust temperrttun:: rose rather gradually to around i 500°F 

### (260°C) then, at about 1-3/4 min into the run, the temperature increased rapidly to approximately 1200 0 F (650°C) just as the planned 

# I 2-min run was termin,1ted. Run I I resulted in the same phenomenon (Fig. 4) except that the rapid temperature rise started 1-1/2 min into the 0 run and leveled off at around 1JOO-14000F (700-760 

### C), the upper range 

# i of the type J thermocouple. Prior to run III, contractor engineers f o 0 • 

# I installed a 0-2000 F (-20-1100 C) thermocouple on the sample probe, taping the bare wire junction at the exhaust exit plane. During run III ! I the contractor-installed thermocouple indicated a maximum temperature of 0 £ nearly 1600 0 F (8/0 C), Run III was terminated before the planned 2-1/2

:Jtal ieldorade esting min time when flame (afterburning) was seen in the exhaust gas.

# 5T~ 40**~~** M J I I.l.. i 

### 30

## ~~ 

# J

' 0 

## l=l I , 

### ! 

# I i 

# ) 1:;'­ 

### 20**~N** ,en i u:> I 1­ / I I.l.. I c , 

### ,....

## 10~~**~"** . 

# I**-,~~** "'-RECORDER PEN 010 NOT INK 

### I 

# /:, I



# o 2 3 4 

### TIME-MINUTES Figure Exll2.US t gas temperature prof He. '-l. 

# I
5 

# I i 4.2.4-1002

!', ;' : ...

.**-:~.:'.;":**

. 't'After considerable discussion of the findings from the first three tests, the contractor made the decision to exchange 

### EPU SiN 76-103 with one taken from another aircraft. However, runs IV-VI with 

### EPU SiN 76­ 107 gave essentially the same exhaust gas temperature characteristics. Afterburning was again observed, but usually only after more than 2 min operation. Hydrazine Results of hydrazine sampling are shown in Table 2. These results indicated some variability, but there was a clear indication that the hydrazine decreased rapidly with time into the run. Impinger collection efficiency was determined from the ratio of hydrazine in the first and seconG**im~ingers.** All hydrazine samples had a collection efficiency of 95.2% with a standard deviation (0) of 8.7%. Significantly greater amounc:s of unreacted hydrazine were found in**r~ns** I and IV. In both cases, these were the first runs made with each of the c:wo different CPU's. Since there had been prolonged cold weather at the time of the tesc:, the catalyst bed temperature was initially '.J 0

. between 0 C and 10 C. Between runs, the catalyst bed was purged with gaseous nitrogen; however, 1:1 the absence of instrumentation to measure**c~talyst** bed temperature, it is probable that the bed was not cooled to ipitial rUT, temperatures. This could account for the variability of the h;dcl;: in.:: values and suggests greater hydt"3z.ine hazard potential at**c(·L~er** ca::alysr tl'mperat;.lres.
Ammonia Results of ammonia sampling are shown in Table 2. These results sho

.... little suggestion of either increases or decreases of ammonia with t::'rne into the run. Impinger collection efficiency for ammonia

.... as calculated and found to be 

### 88.67X

.... ith a = 15.9%.
Gravimetric Determination of Condensibles The 15-5 to 2-min samples gave only a small mass of condensibles, which was a result Jf measuring a small weight difference (less than 0.5 g) between t
.... o rather large \.leights (about 450 g). This inherently high error determination, coupled with the extremely adverse environ**m~ntal** conditions under which

.... eighings were made, rendered these results of marginal usefulness. They arc not included in this report.
Noncondensible Gases The noncandensible sample gases .... ere collected in evacuated tanks lor later laboratorv gas chromatographic analysis. The tanks

.... f"r'"**i;:iti::J.~ly** e\.'dcua.cd to 1 Torr. After sampling, pressures .... ere**det~r­** ::l.n<:"cl wi:h**~l** 10

... · \,'Ui;.lil\t;' Jbsnlute**pressur(~** gi.lU?,E:. Analysis of the tank 6


### 4.2.4-1003

. ; ;,.'. ':<:::;.'


### TABLE 2. HYDRAZINE AND AMMONIA IN EPU EXHAUST GAS

:l Impinger Sample time Hydrazine t\mmon:'a Run \;0. set 

## ---_._-_. No. (min) (\.IS) (mg)
! 1 1 10,778 199

s , 

# , 5 2 3 

### :. 1 1 1 9,100 572

35 23: 180 164
on ; 'f ¥ 

### • < 

## , i II 1
" <. 3 1 1 1 1,725 1,350 690 152 194 191
.n :h \er 

## i 

# I t 4 5 1 1 51 14 182 249 

### I**T~"** J .l. 1 0.25 1,560 58 re**~o** the 

### • :; 

### » t 

### r 

# i 2 3 4 5 0.50 0.50 1 0.28 2,650 358 

### a 0 14 8. 249

58 

## i. IV 1 2 1 1 3,670 2,380 79 2**~.)**

).­ 3 1 374 135 4 1 

## a 9£. 

### th 5 1 0 61) 

# I i v 1 2 3
I


### ... 1 1 1 1 630 430 0 0 170 145 II:. ') I ·7 _"+f



# . , S 1 0 160 :ly 

### v[ 1 1 

## a 177 2 2 255 24l\

- 

## . J 4 2 2 0 

## a**28~** 28J 5 2 0 372

7



### 4.2.4-1004samples was delayed fOL several weeks due to laboratory equipment failure. At that time remeasurement of tank pressures suggested some leakage had occurred. Analysis confirmed the presence of oxygen and also suggested hyd ragen had been lost. ;',.ccordingly, thesE:: resul ts are considered suspect and are not reported herein.
Noncondensible Gas Flow Rates Based on the initial post-sampling pressure measurements at' the tanks and the sampling times, flow rates for each sample in runs V ':lnd VI were calculated. ;"he average for the ten samples was 0.890 l/min with a 0 of 0.218. The limiting orifices had initially been c;llibrated with air at 1. II/min. This value was corrected for**molecula~._\,~~~~I2E..** and temperature, according to:

where Actual flow rate. l/min
.' r .. Calibration flow rate (air at 

### 1.1 l/min) Molecular weight of actual gas**~oleculaL** weight of calibration gas (air 29) Actual temperature oK Calibratiun temperature (293°K) 

### By assuming that 50% of the ammonia was dissociated, the average molecular weight of the product gas was calculated to be 

### 12. Substitution of this o value for H and the average sampling temperature of 27S K for T2'

### th~ 2 corrected sample gas flow rate was calculated to be 0.726 l/min. in reasonable agreement with the measured value (based on average postsampling pressure measurements).
Fuel Consumption The EPU was not instrumented to determine fuel consumption rate. This value was approximated by determining the weight of fuel consumed during each set of runs and assuming a uniform fuel flO\-, Late over**Lh~** total lapsed run time. Fuel consumption for the first CPU (Set A)**wa~** 

### 4.1 Ib/min and for the second EPU (Set B) was 3.5 Ib/min. Determining Emissions and Emission Kates Since both the weights of condensibles and analyses of neJllCOllu(:nsible gases were unreliable, it is impossible to make**~o** overall material balance.**~anipuln[ion** of real data and theoretically expected values 8

..**'~./** . 4.2.4-1005

·."i":
.... '•..

## ".'



## . ( 

## , was was**n~Cl!SSary** employed. to :.i rr ive at erniss ion figures. The (allowing procedurE:

First, the theoretical ratio of ammonia to noncondensible gas formed (mg!liter) was calculated using equation j (Table 1) and plottea against 

### X, the fraction of ammonia dissociated 

### (Fig. 5). The noncondensible gas was assumed to consist only of hydrogen and nitrogen.



# - OJ 

## 3000 d o.D 

### :: 

# -­ en 

## « C) UJ CO 

### en 

## z 2000 UJ C Z 0 U Z 0 Z 0 I­ 

## «



# - z 1000

­ cular 0 his 

# :a: e 

# :a: « u.. 0 

### Q



## ..... 

## « 0: 

# o**~d** 

# o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 

## ,e FRACTION AMMONIA DISSOCIATED**rl~Ui"C** 

### 5. Theoretical ratio of ammonia to noncondensible gas (N 

### + H') ;.lS a function of fraction ammonia dissociated. Z (Based on equation 3, Table 1: [1­ 3 N H. -T 4(l-X) NH] + oX H + (2X+l) 'N ) .t.:rial 2 2 Z ·s 9



### 4.2.4-1006

-;".**:r~<'>:':,** .. :.

:...**~:r" .,:~.;.:**  ..



### .**·~::~$~:;;:';,·~_t··** 

### '..**.~ <~~;:** **.~~;.j~i;~·~r~, ~.**  

# ­

For each sample, the amount of ammonia trapped (mg) per liter of noncondensible gas sampled (0.726 l/min) was determined. These values were averaged for sample sets A and 

### B, and the results are shown in Table 

### 3. Using Figure 

### 5, the corresponding value of 

### X was determined as indicated

, '. in Table 

### 4.
TABLE J. TOTAL HYDRAZINE AND AMMONIA IN EPU EXHAUST Hydrazine sampling time interval (g) Ammonia Run Average Set No. 0-30 s 30-60 s 60-120 s Total (l/min) a

A I 22.55 1. 50 0.08 24.13 603 II 2.38 1. 43 O. 11 3.92 604 

### III 5.83 0.84 

## o 6.67 706

B 

### IV 8.00 0.44 0.37 8.81 376 

## v L 37 

## o o 1. 37 

### 515 VI 

## o 

## o 0.56 0.56 475 ;,

..

a Measured at 21 0 C, 1 ATA

TABLE 4. R..o\TIO OF A. .'1MONIA TO' NONCONDENSIBLE GASES AND ESTIMATED FRACTION OF AMMONIA DISSOCIATED

, . , Set mg NH 3 /1iter noncondensible X, (FractionNH dissociated) 3 i I: i; r· A 274,0 44 0.52 :..i," : B 192,0 60 

### 0.62 in**.~.** ., i r Once a value of X was determined, the theoretical flow rate of noncondensible gas could be detE'rmined from the fuel consumption rate cmd rp;letinn 'j of Table 1, as follows:
fl' 

### II,·. '.

, 'I;"
f' 'i II 10 

### 4.2.4-1007

, ...... , " .. ..

. ;

# 1 Sample Set A: X 0.52 j 

# ! 

# ­ { Fuel flow rate 

### 4.1 lb/min 

### (70% hydrazine) Hydrazine flow rate = 

### (4.1)(0.7)(454)/32 40. 7 g-moles/min 

# 1 From Equation 

### 3: f

# I Noncondensible gas ratio (3. 12 

### + 2. 04) 

### 1 3 

# \

t. 1

Lated)

dent Ion '3 1.72 g-moles/g-mole hydrazine
Noncondensible gas flow rate ( 1. 72) (40. 7) 

### 70.0 g-moles/min


## = 1596 I/min at 

### 5°C

Sam!>le ratio 

### 1596/0.726 21YB or 2200
;'. :;imilar calculation for sample Set B gave a sample ratio of 2180. By 1I1,':mS or these ratios, the hydrazine and arranonia found in the samples "<Ill J.d be extrapolated to the total gas stream, as indicated in Table 3.


### DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The higher-than-expected exhaust gas t'emperatures experienced in 

## : i,.' 1\**~pt** of runs led to speculation that the 

### EPU was not operating Jlr''ill'rl.y. ',..Then the same temperature patterns were observed in the B 

### ;"'1; ,.:ielt .:I different 

### EPU. it became more likely that the operation \,Jas III I :ld normal even if unexpected. The temperature and exhaus t compo­

., il I "ll <lata indicated only minor difference between the two 

### EPU units.**Th~** variability in the results was not altogether unexpected for a I 1.,lll l'Y-tractive sampling method. considering the adverse sampling !''';;lmd"l'rs.· Additional sampling by this method is considered unlikely I" I".'C ine the results to any great extent. If additional refinement is Ili.",j,·d. in situ optical methods should be explored. Laser Raman spectros­ ,/,1'\' """,dd appear to be a promising technique, but our labor:atory is not "'1" 1 I Pl'e<! to do such work. 11


### 4.2.4-1008

.... '0:.- •.

.. -";'-'.­ ,' .. •" 4 : •••.,:";/.,;.;

....

# .....
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES The EPU exhaust gas presents potential exposure to both ammonia and hydrazine. By all realistic scenarios, there is little likelihood of multiple firings at anyone location and on a given day, except in test programs such as the one described in this report. For either planned or inadvertent outdoor ground firings, the duration would probably be of no more than 30 s. Under normal meteorological conditions, one might expect elevated concentrations of ammonia and hydrazine to persist for a matter of 3 to 5 min. For this condition, consideration of 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) standards are inappropriate since relatively massive exposures during this short period of time--assuming no expOSUH: for the remainder of the day--would result in average exposure well below standards. For this reason short-term or excursion limits must he used to evaluate exposures. Table 5 shows appropriate standards currently applicable in the Air Force. Note that the last column of Table 5 shows odor threshold values, which for both materials, are higher than even the short-term limits. Hence, odor canno-t be used to give warning of overexposure. The ratio of ammonia to hydrazine short-term limits is approximately 70:1, whereas the ratio of ammonia to hydrazine in the actual exhaust varied from 20:1 to 49:1 at 30-s duration. Hydrazine therefore appears to be the controlling material. This is unfortunate since ammonia can be measured in air easier than hydrazine, and at the higher ratio would be an indicator of potentially unsafe hydrazine concentrations. Concentrations of ammonia in the immediate vicinity of the exhaust, while not measured directly, were probably greater than 1000 ppm. Concentrations this high are so irritating to man that he will nt)t remain in the_ area of exposure unless he is physically restrained. Hence, massive worker exposures to ammonia are unlikely. Of concern, however. are those areas where the ammonia is present but cannot be detected by odor, or those areas where the ammonia is not in high enough concentration to cause great discomfort. Meteorological conditions are extremely important in determining the extent of these potential**exposur~** zones. For unfavorable conditions, the exposure zone can extend to beyond 50-100 m downwind.

TABLE 5.**~~ONIA** AND HYDRAZINE EXPOSURE LIMITS Short-term or Odor Contaminant 8-h TWA excursion limit threshold Ammonia 25 ppm (18 mg/l) 35 ppm (27 mg/l) 50 ppm Hydrazine 0.1 ppm (0.13 mg/l) 0.3 ppm (0.39 mg/l) 3-4 ppm

12 

### 4.2.4-1009 er btl Iii

._: l: 1 

# ""
( ii,' l. l1ld \'

. '." ..

". 'If the EPU were accidentally fired in a closed hangar, even of moderate size. the concentration of ammonia and/or hydrazine could quickly build up to unacceptable levels throughout the structure. In this case. high concentrations could persist for much more than 

### 3 to 

### 5 min, depending on the ventilation rate for the hangar. The experience to be gained in the climatic test at Eglin (April-May 

### 1978), where the 

### EPU exhaust will be ducte.d outside the hangar,

.... ill be valuable indetennining if venting f is a permissible procedure for indoor firings.

i

### , RECOMMENDATIONS 

### Ly 

# I To arrive at realistic recommendations. we must consider both deliberate planned firings and inadvertent firings. Planned firings may be defined as routinely occurring events (tests) which**requ~re** planned actions to preclude excessive exposure. Inadvertent firings, by contrast, may be defined as accidents which reRuire general cognizance of their probability as well as preplanned actions both to prevent the accident and to minimize injury if the accident should occur. for routine, planned ground hot firings: ely l. Xinimize or eliminate requirements for such firings. s 2. Do not conduct planned ground firings inside closed hangars unless ducting the exhaust gas outside the building is feasible 

### od and effective.

; 

## . J. Develop outdoor siting/meteorological criteria to govern outdoor firings. I, • For area monitoring, use ammonia detection techniques as an indicator of hydrazine. With the hydrazine-ammonia ratios formed. a concentration of over 

### to ppm 

### (7.2 ug/l) ammonia ugh \.Iould indicate excessive hydrazine exposures.**~1SA** (Hine Safety Appliance Co.) sampling tubes (FSN 

### 6665-00-406-9450) re sure would be appropriate for ammonia detection. Use respiratory protective equipment for any tasks occurring immediately around the aircraft during firing and exclude all other personnel from the potential exposure zone .

.**~.** Fur inadvertent ground firings:
1.**J)~velop** actions to reduce probability of inadvertent firings-­ 

### Ld s:lfety devices, checklists, etc. conduct training for those individuals potentially exposed, to recognize sound of EPt:, odor of ammonia, need to a.void the' m area, etc.

13



### 4.2.4-1010"."., 

### REFERENCES 1. Reynold, B. A., and A. A. Thomas. Determination of hydrazine and monomethylhydrazine in blood serum.**AMRL~TRD-64-24,** 

### Apr 1964. 

### 2. Standard Methods of Test for Ammonia. 

### ASTM Designation: D1426-58 (1965), Manual on Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water, 2d 

### ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1966.

", ,". -',::' ":.' .

. : ".­



# .­ 14


### 4.2.4-1011

.. ';0 •

........ ,'"